What Obama Tells His Banker Pals

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Thank you for to do something but what about Pakistan and
Afghanistan. Pakistan didn't do something to you but the
solider are attack on Pakistan & Afghanistan.
Please do something
Thank you

nahid of GA 5:45PM December 15, 2009

So this is mildly entertaining---like a historical novel.
But we'd do better imagining a conversation Obama should have had, with the bankers and the Congress. "We're going to re-institute higher PERSONAL income tax on higher incomes----and we're going to do it on reconciliation with only 51 votes in the Senate, like Republicans did the Bush tax cuts. In return, we're going to stop talking about pay caps and CEO bashing----we're just going to have high taxes on high incomes. Above $500,000-----40%. Above $1,000,000----50%. Above $3,000,000----60%. Above $5,000,000----70%. Above $10,000,000----90%."
Bear in mind, PERSONAL income in high brackets does not create jobs (except housemaids and gardeners) and never did. You want job creation? You need that money retained at the corporation level----NOT paid out to the CEOs at the public corporations and owners of the S-Corps.

Muser of NM 3:17PM December 15, 2009

The banks, which Mr. Newman and President Obama are beating up on, are only responding to incentives.
It was the Congress (Frank & Dodd, et al.) and both the Bush and Clinto Administrations that pushed banks to make more and more loans to riskier borrowers... (i.e. the poor and minorities.) The government threatened lenders with fines and extra-regulations - the lenders did what anyone would do - respond to the power of government.
However, the lenders/banks knew the loans were risky but were caught between a political rock and a hard place. So, since they didn't want to keep these loans on their books, they off-loaded them to the investment management space (bond funds) in structured products (MBS and ABS securities).
This worked well. Too well.
Lenders/Banks saw that they could make the politicians happy by lending to the risky and investors happy by selling them high yielding stuctured assets. As long as the housing market continued to go up (gee, thanks Mr. Greesspan for keeping rates low and funding a massive housing boom through cheap credit) and someone was there to buy the structured mortgage products (ohhh, like Fannie and Freddie - essentially government run mortage AND investment companies) everything was great.
And, as time went on, the Banks and large Wall Street firms keep making more and more complex structured securities.
And, not wanting the gravy train of fees to stop, underwriting standards fell to imperceptible levels... besides, if you were a bank WHY WOULD YOU CARE WHO YOU LENT TO because you were jsut going to sell the loan off anyway...
Until the housing market turned down and it all blew up.
But even here th elenders and Wall Street knew, since Freddie and Fannie owned so much of the MBS bonds, that the government would be forced to some extent to backstop losses

of 1:07PM December 15, 2009

An imagined conversation is purported to be news?
What's next? A puff piece on where Paris Hilton is now?
I have lost any respect I might have had for US News and World Onion!

Bob of PA 11:55AM December 15, 2009

I can remember 25 years ago discussing various newsweeklies with friends of all sorts of political persuasions. I'd estimate that each of read US News & World Report_, _Time_, and _Newsweek_ regularly. We easily arrived at a consensus opinion that USN&WR was easily the best of the lot, although it could use some improvements. (_Time_ was considered then to have already become an advocacy publication rather than a news publication, even by those favoring its positions.)
Today, while our ranking of the "Big Three" would likely remain unchanged, we would generally say that none of them were good news sources anymore. That includes USN&WR. They all followed _Time's_ lead. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Nowadays I perhaps read *one* of the "Big Three" in a month's time, if that.

CBI of NM 10:12AM December 15, 2009

It's kind of odd to hear someone talking to Pres Obama about being "anointed" to a job and _not_ be referring to Barack. Likewise, it's the administration claiming the recession is over, not private business.
The author does make some good points, I especially enjoyed the bit about executive "talent".
The execs of Goldman et al arguing with Obama is car thieves argue with the guy who runs the chop shop. I dream of there being laws to prevent our government "getting too big or doing stupid things"

Steve of MO 9:24AM December 15, 2009

For Tea Party Patriot and "Hide the Decline" Gear, go to Zazzle.
It would be a better use of your time than reading made-up stuff about Obama, since reporters are having a hard time these days finding him actually saying coherent sentences.

Jane of VA 8:54AM December 15, 2009

This is not news. The current decay of journalism in this country is striking.

Chris of DC 7:06AM December 15, 2009

Come on, this is a newspaper, instead of doing such infantile jokes I guess you´d better try to take your butts off the couch and try to spring forth ideas. Helping and informing people is the deal when talking about a newspaper, not talking about an "imaginary" conversation... How come you demand seriousness towards the president posture if you (the media)don´t make your efforts? shame on you!!!

Sinaif 5:15AM December 15, 2009